Two central questions about science are (1) what are the aims of science and (2) how should one interpret the results of science? Scientific realists claim that science aims at truth and that one ought to regard scientific theories as true, approximately true, or likely true. Conversely, a scientific antirealist or instrumentalist argues that science does not aim (or at least does not succeed) at truth and that we should not regard scientific theories as true.[8] Some antirealists claim that scientific theories aim at being instrumentally useful and should only be regarded as useful, but not true, descriptions of the world.[9]Realists often point to the success of recent scientific theories as evidence for the truth (or near truth) of our current theories.[10][11][12][13][14] Antirealists point to either the history of science,[15][16] epistemic morals,[9] the success of false modeling assumptions,[17] or widely termed postmodern criticisms of objectivity as evidence against scientific realisms.[18] Some antirealists attempt to explain the success of scientific theories without reference to truth.[9][19]